Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUNIL SACHDEVA AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sunil Sachdeva And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 5346 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 7582 (24 April 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 5346 of 2007

Hon'ble Sushil Harkauli, J.

Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Singh, J.

Heard Shri U.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners assisted by Shri Manish Tewari and Shri Amit Saxena representing the respondent No. 3, who does not propose to file any counter affidavit.

Apparently, both the parties are respectable persons of the society. The first information report has been lodged by the respondent No. 3 against the petitioners. The allegation in the first information report is that the respondent No. 3 contributed Rs. 18.5 lakhs and an equal amount was contributed by the petitioners. The idea was to take over another company having an authorized share capital of Rs. 5 lakhs and a Paid-up Capital of Rs. 1 lakh and, thereafter, to use that other company for doing the proposed business. The allegation of the complainant is that after the take over, the Paid-up Share Capital of the company was divided half and half between the petitioner No. 1 and his wife, instead of dividing the Paid-up Share Capital between the petitioners and the respondent No. 3.

Even, if technically, this may suffer from some misunderstanding, it is obvious that the Share Capital, which has been divided between the petitioner No. 1 and his wife is only a small fraction of the amount actually invested by the petitioners and, it can not be said that any money of the complainant has been utilised for buying any shares in the name of the petitioner No. 1 or his wife. For converting the contribution of Rs. 37 lakhs into shares, the authorised capital of the company would have to be increased.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire amount of Rs. 37 lakhs i.e., contribution of both the parties is lying in a deposit as security with Reliance Info Com and no part of it has been utilised for buying of any shares in the name of petitioner No. 1or his wife.

Considering all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that this is not a fit case for any kind of criminal proceedings. The first information report dated 17.4.2007 registered as Case Crime No. 62305070116 of 2007 of P.S. Civil Lines district Allahabad, is quashed.

The writ petition is allowed as above.

We further direct both the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre of the Allahabad High Court on 27.4.2007 at 4:00 p.m. Learned counsel for both sides will give intimation of the date and time fixed by this order to Shri Navin Sinha, Senior Advocate, so that some person may be available at the Mediation Centre, High Court, Allahabad, at the time and date fixed for appearance of the parties to settle this matter amicably through mediation.

Dated: April 24, 2007

AM/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.